The common language in our struggles is understanding each link in the nuclear chain.

—Ian Zabarte, Western Shoshone

Summer Quarterly 2017

By Kelly Lundeen

If you thought the proposal to store highly radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was dead, check out the new lineup in Washington, DC. With powerful opponents Senator Harry Reid and former President Obama out of the political picture, some Republicans are attempting to revive the licensing process for the waste repository. Trump’s budget proposal requested $120 million for the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has requested $30 million, so the agencies can reopon the licensing process. A Yucca dump would target Western Shoshone lands with the nation’s 70,000-plus tons of waste reactor fuel which would come in from over 70 locations. The nuclear industry responsible for creating the radioactive waste is promoting Yucca and other centralized dumpsites in order to transfer liability to the public from the facilities where it is currently being generated and stored.

Luckily, the movement of Native American and anti- nuclear organizations that stopped the licensing process in 2010 remembers all of the reasons it has always been a bad idea: as a matter of Native sovereignty, science, environment, economy and politics. Considering the site under US federal ownership is a violation of the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, and Yucca Mountain is held sacred by the Western Shoshone. It is located on the third most seismic region on the continent, near seven cinder cone volcanoes, 26 fault lines and contains a moving water table that would corrode canisters, making it geologically unstable and unsuitable. Transportation by road, rail and barge would expose 100 million people (about a third of the country’s population) living along these routes in the case of an accident. Any accident at the site, 90 miles from Las Vegas, or along the route as it passes through “the Strip,” would devastate the local tourism industry which brought 43 million visitors in 2016. In sum, 299 legal contentions to the application as it stood in 2010 would still require adjudication, resulting in over 400 days of hearings.

Opponents to the dump have maintained their net­work, knowledge and strength. Since the November election, the Native Community Action Council, the only party to the licensing process that is not federally funded, has hosted a forum to defend Yucca Mountain. The National Grassroots Radioac­tive Waste Summit created a Yucca Working Group that gathered 80 organizational signatures on a letter to Congress objecting to any licensing of the abandoned site. All but one member of Nevada’s congressional delegation and majority of Nevadans are opposed to the dump. Lawmakers have intro­duced legislation requiring informed consent from local tribes and governments prior to licensing. The bill would codify the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendation that consent-based siting be agreed before money from the federal Nuclear Waste Fund could be dispersed.

Some proponents of the site are undeterred and insist on following through with the portions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) that made Yucca Mountain the destination for the nation’s high level radioactive waste. Dozens of disqualifying road- blocks have to be ignored to restart the process. Draft legislation to renew licensing proceedings, by amending the NWPA, has been heard in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. A few local politicians are driven by hopes of economic gain in return for accepting the waste. Commissioner Dan Schinhofen of Nye County, where Yucca Mountain is located, reportedly said, “… say give us $50 mil­lion up front, and give us $10 million a year.”

If funds for licensing are given Congressional ap­proval, get ready for years if not decades of litiga­tion and direct action.

Elsewhere on the Radioactive Waste Front

Ten million of the $120 million requested for the DOE by Trump is for so-called “interim storage” in anticipation of long delays in licensing a dump at Yucca Mt. Two applications for such “interim” sites in controversial desert areas of Texas and New Mexico have been submitted to the NRC. Neither of the sites has undergone a consent-based siting or environmental impact process.

Waste Control Specialists, Inc. (WSC) has applied to accept more high-level waste at its site in An­drews County, Texas, but in April the firm suspend­ed its application while in the process of being pur­chased by Energy Solutions, Inc. WCS has admitted to facing “enormous financial challenges.” Addition­ally, the Eddy Lea Energy Alliance and Holtec, Inc. applied in March to host 120,000 tons of high-level waste reactor in southeast New Mexico.

Meanwhile the DOE’s Deep Borehole Field Test proposal has been completely scrapped. The DOE had sought approval to test the feasibility of storing radioactive waste in boreholes three miles deep at sites in Texas, New Mexico and South Dakota, but confronted strong opposition from local communities. Although as an alternative waste site it has been suggested the newly discovered sinkhole in front of Mr. Trump’s luxury resort at Mar-a-Lago. After contractors faced resistance in every meeting with area residents in four potential locations, the agency announced, “Due to changes in budget priorities, the Department of Energy does not intend to continue supporting the Deep Borehole Field Test project.”

One of two deep-underground tunnel roof collapses that recently caused evacuations of the military radioactive “Waste Isolation Pilot Plant” in New Mexico. Photo: Energy Dept.

By Arianne Peterson

Summer Quarterly 2017

On Jan. 4, 2017, the Department of Energy (DOE) reopened its Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which had been closed since a barrel of radioactive waste stored there exploded in February 2014. The New Mexico facility is the only one accepting transuranic waste (including contaminated tools, clothing, gloves, soil, and debris) from the federal sites involved in nuclear weapons production, and its 35-month closure has caused a backlog of packaged waste to pile up above ground at cleanup sites across the country.

When the DOE opened WIPP in 1999, it touted the underground site as a “permanent” storage facility for military radioactive waste that would “start clean” and “stay clean.” Now, significant portions of the site are permanently contaminated and workers have to wear respirators and protective clothing. The ventilation system which was damaged by the radiation release following the 2014 explosion is operating at a fraction of its original capacity; the DOE is replacing it with a new system expected to be ready in 2021, at an estimated cost of $350-400 million. Citizens’ and environmental watchdog groups have expressed concerns about whether the site is safe to reopen.

Don Hancock of the Southwest Research and Information Center voiced disappointment when the facility was cleared for reopening in December 2016: “The question is how long it is going to be into the new year [before another accident happens]. People, especially workers, are likely to get hurt because they still have significant problems.”

The Mine Safety and Health Administration released a report in December warning that underground conditions have deteriorated significantly while the site was closed. The salt deposit that encloses the storage area contracts by as much as six inches per year, and keeping the dug-out waste rooms intact requires constant structural maintenance, which has been significantly interrupted by the 3-year closure.

WIPP’s reopening was delayed by two significant roof collapses in the waste storage rooms in late 2016. On Nov. 3, an eight-foot-thick section of ceiling more than 60 yards long crashed to the tunnel floor while workers were underground, causing an evacuation but no injuries. According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration Report: “Emergencies are addressed immediately while lower priorities languish until they become emergencies… As the risk level increases, so does the likelihood of unanticipated events.”

After the Jan. 4 reopening, WIPP focused on burying the waste that had been left above ground at the site since the February 2014 explosion. The site’s first shipment of off-site waste arrived April 10, and the DOE expects to accept two shipments of waste per week until it makes improvements to the damaged ventilation system later this year. A WIPP press release stated, “Initial shipments are expected from Idaho, Savannah River Site and Waste Control Specialists. Shipments from Oak Ridge and Los Alamos National Laboratory are expected later this year.”

In December, New Mexico-based groups Citizen Action New Mexico and Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Energy Department asking for documents related to preparations for reopening WIPP—including any financial incentives promised to the Nuclear Waste Partnership, the contractor that runs the facility, for speeding up the process. The DOE denied the groups’ request for an expedited return of FOIA information and they are appealing, citing a lack of transparency surrounding the reopening. While DOE officials have denied that bonuses are tied to the reopening, a 2017 Department of Energy Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan for WIPP says the contractor could receive more than $2 million for reopening and another $2.1 million for completing a waste placement milestone within the first 90 days of resumed operations.

In fiscal year 2016, Nuclear Waste Partnership received $11.2 million (around 72%) of a possible $15.5 million in bonus funds. According to ARS Technica, the Times reported in 2016 that the DOE added $640 million to the contract for direct cleanup costs after the accident, which does not include the ventilation system replacement or the added price of keeping waste above ground at clean-up sites around the country over the past three years.

Just a few months ago, you could google consent- based siting and instantly find the Department of Energy’s webpage on the process, filled with documents, videos, and infographics on their plan to site nuclear waste. Now, all you can find are these two sentences: “Thank you for your interest in this topic. We are currently updating our website to reflect the Department’s priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Perry.”

Over 10,000 public comments are gone; detailed explanations of the integrated waste management and interim storage facilities have vanished; and videos from the eight public meetings held in 2015 and 2016 are nowhere to be found. There is nothing but those two sentences. Just like there is nothing about consent-based siting in the 2018 federal budget proposal issued in April.

The Department of Energy began the consent-based siting process in 2015 after withdrawing its license application for construction on Yucca Mountain in 2010, a project that was widely unpopular in Nevada. The DOE held eight meetings in different cities across the US to discuss how they should go about siting more than 70,000 tons of nuclear waste created from nuclear energy production and nuclear defense programs. In the feedback the DOE received from those meetings and an open comment period, many nuclear activists and concerned citizens expressed their doubt that any such process could truly have the consent of every person affected by the nuclear waste repositories and interim storage facilities. Others said that the nuclear energy companies along with the department of defense, and not the community members whose well-being could be directly affected by the hazardous waste, should bear the brunt of the cost and effort needed to safely store the hazardous material.

While the process was flawed, it was at least better than reverting to a plan that had already been rejected due to its lack of safety and public approval. Yet that is, of course, what the Trump administration plans to do. The 2018 budget proposal states, “The FY 2018 Yucca Mountain and Interim Storage Programs’ FY 2018 Budget Request is dedicated to resuming the NRC licensing process for Yucca Mountain and initiation of a robust interim storage program,” claiming this step is necessary “to accelerate progress on fulfilling the Federal Government’s obligations to address nuclear waste, enhance national security, and reduce future taxpayer burden.”

And yes, Yucca Mountain may hasten federal government’s ability to fulfill its obligations, and it could reduce taxpayer burden, a burden that has been increasing since 1998 when the government began paying damages to nuclear energy companies for continuing to store spent nuclear fuel on-site. But it is just as likely that it will waste time, energy, and money on a site that has already been deemed unsafe and untenable. Above all though, it shows the Trump administration’s willingness and eagerness to disregard public input and to ignore the political and ethical implications of such a move. It shows its willingness to act without consent.

—Elena Hight is a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Partial Failure of Radiation Shielding

Summer Quarterly 2017

The first unprecedented and controversial shipment of high-risk, highly radioactive liquid waste from Canada arrived at the Savannah River Site (SRS), according to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB). The handling of the first armed convoy faced problems at SRS due to inadequacies in a container designed to shield workers from radiation.

A DNFSB report found that, “After loading …, radiological protection (RP) [personnel] identified an unexpected hotspot on the side of the pig indicating that the pig was not providing adequate radiological shielding. RP labeled the hotspot before H-Canyon personnel relocated the pig so the hotspot would be facing the wall. H-Canyon personnel did not identify any similar issues on the other pigs and are planning to use the one spare ‘pig’ for future evolutions,” ‘pig’ being an in-house term for the outer hauling container.

A truck and a container like the one used in an unprecedented high-risk experimental shipment of high-level radioactive waste in liquid form from Chalk River, Ontario to Savannah River, South Carolina.

In response to the report of faulty shielding of workers from radiation exposure, SRS Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request for more information.

The waste is from medical isotope production at Chalk River National Labs in Ontario, and contains a host of highly radioactive fission products. Once processed to remove uranium in the 61-year-old “H-Canyon” complex, newly resulting waste is to be dumped into nearly antique waste tanks at SRS. The Canadian liquid waste consists of about 6,000 gallons stored in the so-called Fissile Solution Storage Tank at Chalk River, and is to be shipped using up to 150 overland transports via unspecified routes from Canada to SRS.

The US Energy Department kept this first shipment secret, as well as the radioactive hotspot that was discovered on the shipping cask, but watchdog groups alerted the press and public.

In February this year, environmental groups including SRS Watch, Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club lost a federal lawsuit urging DOE to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement on the shipments. The court found no need for an in-depth analysis of transport risks, impacts of processing and disposal at SRS, or alternative methods of managing the waste in Canada. The groups argue that doing the “downblending” of the highly enriched uranium in the liquid waste in Canada, and then solidifying it there, is the best option from nuclear non-proliferation and environmental perspectives.

This government-backed downblending option has been proven viable with the processing of similar liquid nuclear waste in Indonesia.

“For both non-proliferation and environmental reasons, the best option remains management of this liquid high-level waste in Canada,” said Tom Clements, director of SRS Watch, an independent oversight group. “The unprecedented and unjustified import of the highly radioactive liquid waste from Canada to SRS will only place an additional burden on aging SRS waste tanks and slow down the urgent removal of waste from those tanks.”

“The incident with the handling of the Canadian waste on its arrival at SRS gives the … team a black eye for flubbing the very first shipment after years of preparation,” Clement said.

Three of the six reactors at Japan’s Fukushima-Daiichi complex were wrecked in March 2011 by an earthquake and tsunami. The destruction of emergency electric generators caused a “station blackout” which halted cooling water intake and circulation. Super-heated, out-of-control uranium fuel in reactors 1, 2, and 3 then boiled off cooling water, and some 300 tons of fuel “melted” and burned through the reactors’ core vessels, gouging so deep into underground sections of the structure that to this day operators aren’t sure where it is. Several explosions in reactor buildings and uncovered fuel rods caused the spewing of huge quantities of radioactive materials to the atmosphere, and the worst radioactive contamination of the Pacific Ocean ever recorded. Fukushima amounts to Whole-Earth poisoning.

Now, researchers say, radioactive isotopes that were spread across Japan (and beyond) by the meltdowns will continue to contaminate the food supply for a very long time.

According to a new study that focused on “radiocaesium” — as the British call cesium-134 and cesium-137 — “food in japan will be contaminated by low-level radioactivity for decades.” The official university announcement of this study neglected to specify that Fukushima’s cesium will persist in the food chain for thirty decades. It takes 10 radioactive half-lives for cesium-137 to decay to barium, and its half-life is about 30 years, so C-137 stays in the environment for roughly 300 years.

The study’s authors, Professor Jim Smith, of the University of Portsmouth, southwest of London, and Dr. Keiko Tagami, from the Japanese National Institute of Radiological Sciences, report that cesium-caused “radiation doses in the average diet in the Fukushima region are very low and do not present a significant health risk now or in the future.”

This phraseology deliberately conveys a sense of security — but a false one. Asserting that low doses of radiation pose no “significant” health risk sounds reassuring, but an equally factual framing of precisely the same finding is that small amounts of cesium in food pose a slightly increased risk of causing cancer.

This fact was acknowledged by Prof. Smith in the June 14 University of Portsmouth media advisory that announced his food contamination study, which was published in Science of the Total Environment. Because of above-ground atom bomb testing, Prof. Smith said, “Radioactive elements such as caesium-137, strontium-90 and carbon-14 contaminated the global environment, potentially causing hundreds of thousands of unseen cancer deaths.”

No less an authority than the late John Gofman, MD, Ph.D., one of the first scientists to produce plutonium, and Professor Emeritus of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, spent 50 years warning about the threat posed by low doses of radiation. In May 1999, Gofman wrote, “By any reasonable standard of biomedical proof, there is no safe dose, which means that just one decaying radioactive atom can produce permanent mutation in a cell’s genetic molecules. My own work showed this in 1990 for X rays, gamma rays, and beta particles.”

The Fukushima-borne cesium in Japan’s food supply, and in the food-web of the entire Pacific Ocean, emits both beta and gamma radiation. Unfortunately, it will bio-accumulate and bio-concentrate for 300 years, potentially causing, as Dr. Gofman if not Dr. Smith might say, hundreds of thousands of unseen cancer deaths. — John LaForge